-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, January 8, 2009 - 2:16 PM
Share
Courtesy of Philip Weiss's blog, here is another thought experiment from New America Foundation's Daniel Levy. Note: it's not a transcript; it is Weiss's summary of a portion of a conference call that Levy conducted two days ago:
[Levy] said: We all hear, oh, the U.S. would do the same thing if Canada or Mexico were firing rockets at us. We would have a duty to respond. And yes, I think, Israel has a duty to respond, Levy said.
But then he went on to explode that analogy, and get at the core issue: Lack of Political Sovereignty. Canada and Mexico are states. Palestinians have no state. Remember, he said, that Gaza is just 4 percent of the Palestinian territories. The other 96 percent are still occupied. They have been for 40 years. And imagine that the 4 percent had been under siege, since they were unoccupied 3 years ago. And the occupied parts were crisscrossed with checkpoints and colonies.
Would it really be that surprising if in Canada or Mexico there was a hardline opposition that took over the government? And was deeply opposed to the occupier? 'I'll leave that to your imagination.'"
It bears repeating that the real value of these analogies (or "thought experiments") is not to justify any particular course of action (although plenty of politicians have been using them that way). Reality is too complicated for that, and its usually easy to argue that a particular analogy doesn't fit the concrete case one currently confronts. Rather, the real purpose is to help us examine the facile, good-versus-evil stereotypes and conventional assumptions that constitute much of the discourse about difficult political issues, and especially the Israel-Palestine conflict.
My new FP blogging associate David Rothkopf objects to my initial thought experiment, which asked whether U.S. policy might be different if the Israeli and Palestinian situations were reversed. In doing so, he demonstrates how hard it is for some people to retain their objectivity and rhetorical poise on these issues. He accuses me of being on an "jihad" against Israel (note the loaded language), and claims that I've joined an "anti-Israel lobby" whose ranks include former President Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
I'm flattered to be placed in such distinguished company, but here Rothkopf is committing the all-too-common error of assuming that critics of certain Israeli policies (and critics of the current "special relationship") are "anti-Israel." In fact, the special relationship (i.e., the policy of nearly-unconditional and uncritical support) is increasingly harmful to the Jewish state, as it makes it almost impossible for the United States to oppose Israeli actions that are misguided (such as settlement-building, or Israel's ill-founded strategy in the Lebanon War of 2006). The United States would be a better friend to Israel if we had a more normal relationship, and if U.S. leaders could talk more openly about these issues.
As for Carter, consider what former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami writes in his excellent book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace:
Carter did not hesitate to criticize Israel publicly, threaten her and even put pressure on her. As it turned out, it was this kind of President—George Bush [the elder] in the later 1980s is another case in point—who was ready to confront Israel head on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America that managed eventually to produce meaningful breakthroughs on the way to an Arab-Israeli peace" (p. 167, my emphasis).
The current President Bush is often described as the most "pro-Israel" President in history. Yet his policies have helped make Hamas stronger and more popular, and his cheerleading for Israel’s ill-advised war in Lebanon in 2006 ended up costing more Israeli lives and left Hezbollah in a stronger position in Lebanon. His policies also facilitated settlement expansion and made a two-state solution harder to achieve, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 ended up improving Iran's strategic position, which is hardly good for Israel. All this reinforces a point I made a few days ago: it is high time to redefine what "pro-Israel" means.
Yet his policies have helped make Hamas stronger and more popular, and his cheerleading for Israel’s ill-advised war in Lebanon in 2006 ended up costing more Israeli lives and left Hezbollah in a stronger position in Lebanon.
How was/is Israel supposed to respond to rocket attacks and kidnappings of those who patrol its border? Or
As for Bush and Hamas, his mistake was arguably holding elections. Are you saying Gaza ain't ready for democracy yet? Are you saying self-determination should be denied to Hamas? I thought it was a bad idea to hold elections - Fatah, right now, needs to institutionalize itself more (Huntington on institutions to channel mass participation?)
If Walt is truly concerned about lobbies pushing US foreign policy toward ways he thinks inimical to long-term US interests, it is long past time he and his colleague took a detailed look at the Saudi lobby, which lacks even the support of a substantial base of US voters.
What has prevented this? What was it "Deep Throat" said? Oh yes, "follow the money".
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
The United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on the fact that it serves cheap security interests (cheap supply of oil, containment of Iran, etc.) It has nothing to do with any "Saudi lobby", which is non-existent.
Your statement is correct in spirit, but it is not correct if taken literally. In other words, yes, the Saudi lobby is not nearly as influential as others, but it is not "non-existent."
See here, for example:
http://www.nysun.com/national/saudi-lobbyist-quits-mccain-campaign/76595
That is nonsense. The Saudis target money to areas they wish to influence. Saudi contractors do the same. They aim for high-leverage targets. Fluor, for example, tried to give several millions to the Aspen Institute for a Middle East program on grounds no Israelis could participate. When the Board was alerted to this by their Chairman after it was called to my attention by Teddy Kollek, they told Fluor to get lost. The scandal made the front page of the New York Times the next morning.
When I served in Washington, Prince Bandar and others were all over the place pushing policies inimical to US interests and Israel. Saudi weapons purchases were used as leverage.
The Saudi lobby is also very active in off-the-record briefings to the CFR in an attempt to lobby America's leadership; it is no accident that most Secretaries of State come from the CFR's membership, including the current incumbent. I speak as a former member of the CFR, not some conspiracy theorist.
When I was Chief Economist of a major international oil company we often had Jim Atkins, the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia hold forth. His advocacies were so blatantly pro-Saudi and inimical to US security interests that the joke in Washington was that he was the Saudi Ambassador to the US.
During the OPEC oil embargo the Saudis mounted a massive lobbying campaign, aided by Atkins, to convince Americans that if we didn't tilt against Israel oil would be cut off and we would freeze in the dark. Economists have subsequently proven that OPEC prices at the time were driven by the tightness or looseness of demand in Western Europe and not political reasons. In fact at times the US did nothing pro-Israel yet prices were raised. At other times the US took strong pro-Israel action yet prices were lowered due to supply and demand imbalance.
M&W arguments about US national security and oil are pure baloney which cannot stand the light of serious economic analysis as, for example, Prof. Dermot Gately of NYU's work has repeatedly shown.
The Saudis are the marginal supplier of the marginal suppliers. A small drop in US demand leads to a very much larger drop in demand for Saudi oil; we draw from closer supplies first and so do others; the British from the North Sea, for example. We do not reduce demand from all countries proportional to total demand. Thus it is the Saudis that have to worry about US conservation and energy policy and not vice versa, despite the propaganda.
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
Of course there are those who lobby for Saudi interests - with all that money floating around it would difficult to imagine there would not be. But there is no comparison in power and influence between the Israel Lobby and any other group or individual that might be lobbying for any other foreign country. Israel reigns supreme in this regard. I hope to God that Sternhill is not implying otherwise.
No, sovereignty is not the core issue
Virtually no Palestinians would accept sovereignty over the limited territory you mean. They would not end the armed struggle if that means leaving the Zionists with permanent sovereignty over the remaining part of Palestine (i.e., inside the Green Line). You may dispute that, but it's indisputable that Hamas and Islamic Jihad, at least, would not be satisfied with a state in only part of Palestine. They would continue their terrorist attacks against Israel. Even if the majority of Palestinians suddenly decided to accept Israel's existence, and even if the new so-called "sovereign" state of Palestine were not a client state of Iran or Syria, the Palestinian government would be unable to suppress Hamas without provoking a civil war. The government would never do that. And why would the "sovereign" state want to do it anyway? In the future as during the Oslo process, terrorist attacks would be useful for the Palestinian government to extract concessions from Israel.
Sovereignty, or rather statehood (calling the future Palestinian state "sovereign" is a sick joke), is irrelevant to the basic conflict, as long as you mean statehood alongside Israel. It's a patronizing insult to suggest that the Palestinians are willing to accept statehood in whatever part of Palestine Israel is kind enough to give back to them, and that they'll violently suppress their countrymen who will continue the struggle. The Palestinians are fighting to liberate all of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
As long as we're indulging in fantastic thought experiments, consider this one: the territories are put under the jurisdiction of two truly sovereign states, Jordan and Egypt. The sovereign states are willing to suppress Hamas et al. because it's in their own interest to do so. Sovereignty solves the problem. But that's Jordanian and Egyptian sovereignty, not Palestinian.
Big problem with your solution: Neither Egypt nor Jordan want those territories and the problems they bring. Both have said so for decades.
The only solution, agreed upon by all the Arab states as put forth in the Arab initiative, is a two-state solution with 1967 borders.
See the topic: thought experiment
Of course the Jordanian/Egyptian option isn't realistic. That's why I called it a thought experiment, not a solution. The purpose of a thought experiment is to clarify our thinking. What this thought experiment shows is that sovereignty itself is not the core issue here, or even an important issue. Palestinian "sovereignty" (statehood) in only part of Palestine -- i.e., leaving Israel intact -- would not end the war, as I explained above. It might even intensify it. Jordanian and Egyptian sovereignty, which of course is not a realistic possibility, would end the war. Appealing to the concept of sovereignty in itself, like some sort of magical charm, is just sloppy thinking.
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Parts 1 & 2
These YouTube videos speak for themselves:
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9_LatFA_hA
The Beauty Of Hamas And The Ugliness Of Israel, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM8Sa_oFc9o
I suppose I would take issue with this:
Yet his policies have helped make Hamas stronger and more popular, and his cheerleading for Israel’s ill-advised war in Lebanon in 2006 ended up costing more Israeli lives and left Hezbollah in a stronger position in Lebanon.
(Bold mine.)
I'm not sure I feel comfortable with saying Bush's support for the war in Lebanon "ended up costing more Israeli lives." The actual war did that, yes, but the causal relationship between Bush's support of said war and its actual execution seems to be weak. This seems to be an example of Matthew Yglesias' Green Lantern Theory of Foreign Policy where one can change reality simply by will. Is there evidence that Bush's support led to the invasion? Am I missing something?
I'm glad Professor Walt, and the other bloggers, are not afraid to criticize each other. Keep it up.
Enough said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459207651&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
fundamental error in Walt's argument
Walt offers the "thought experiment, which asked whether U.S. policy might be different if the Israeli and Palestinian situations were reversed." It is apparent that were Hamas to have the power to be the dominant force, Israel would not be confined to Gaza, it would be totally and mercilessly destroyed, and that would be done in the name of God, no less. We can go back and forth all week (as everyone has been doing) debating whether Israel's actions are 'disporoportionate' or even inherently inept but let's be clear that if the situation were reversed, Hamas has absolutley no intention of compromise. So it is unreasonable and perhaps absurd to blame the victim for being strong enough to protect itself. Worse, Walt and his sympathizers refuse to acknowledge that Israel is a victim of this conflict (which is not to say that Gazans are not victims). You can make a case that israel's actions will not provide the kind of protection it seeks but you cannot in good faith suggest that Israel should simply yield to Hamas' demands which are unequivocally for Palestine in its entirety.
When "professors" answer market imperatives
and choose to be popular among some people of the American society - and to indulge them becomes, by far, more important than intelectual values - then happen articles such as this. Which have nothing bright or useful to say, just to promote a certain despicabile, after all, kind of success.
he responded ... i deleted mine because i hadn't read his yet. he covers what i did.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(17)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE